I just finished reading comments from The World Bank that say “…the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called “financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.”
The whole time I was reading it I kept hearing the Ghostly voice of Gilda Radner, of Saturday Night Live fame saying “Nevermind.”
Her character Emily Litella was an elderly woman with a hearing problem who made regular appearances on SNL’s Weekend Updateop-ed segment in the late 1970s. Attired in a frumpy dress and sweater, Litella was introduced with professional dignity by the news anchors, who could sometimes be seen cringing slightly in anticipation of the verbal faux pas they knew would follow.
After ranting in an outraged manner, the news anchor would point out she didn’t get the point to which Gilda would reply “Nevermind.”
The World Bank’s leaked” report in 2008 erroneously blamed biofuels for 75 percent of the commodity price spike. The authors of their most recent report conclude that it is unlikely biofuels played a significant role because they do not represent a large percentage of worldwide grain and oilseed use.
It really might have been nice to know this before the World cost the nation’s family farmers dearly in terms of public trust. More importantly, they left the public thinking we should reserve our corn for human food consumption alone. Given this market is mature and our corn yields are soaring, we must look to other markets to keep farmers profitable and viable. And the markets with the most growth potential are things like ethanol, biodegradable products and other industrial uses.
“In reversing course, this World Bank report reaffirms the marginal role biofuels play in world commodity and food prices,” said RFA President Bob Dinneen. “The RFA has long noted that ethanol production has continued to increase while corn prices have now returned to normal levels. Volatile oil prices, speculation, and adverse weather conditions all played far more significant roles in driving commodity prices to record and near record prices. This report should silence critics in the food processing industry, the livestock industry, on Capitol Hill, and anywhere else that sought to portray ethanol as the boogeyman. With this phony food and fuel discussion put behind us, perhaps a real conversation about America’s energy future can ensue.”
Well put Bob but I think the cow left the barn in regard to the damage the World Bank did with their previous faux pas. I wish Emily/Gilda was still around to tell American consumers “Nevermind.”
Dear New York Times…Your editorial today regarding corn-based ethanol is superficial, either uninformed or malicious, and a disservice to the citizens of this nation looking for real energy solutions we can implement today.
Before addressing some of the onerous points in your piece, please take a look at the attached photo. This is not from the BP spill in the Gulf but rather the latest incident in Michigan which has dumped a million gallons of oil into a river and is now 80 miles from polluting Lake Michigan. Oil is and always has been a loaded gun from an environmental perspective. From leaking tanks at service stations to oil tankers grounded on coral reefs in storms. No more explanation needed on this one.
However, perhaps the biggest point you fail to address is wind, coal, and geothermal don’t make your car go. Natural gas can be used as an automotive fuel but it too is not renewable and has other issues I won’t go into here today. Solar….I’ll race you with my bicycle.
Will ethanol be made from other sources some day? Undoubtedly. Other biomass sources show real potential and will come with the proper research and development, but corn-based technology and infrastructure is the very launching platform for this effort. Yet opponents would have us build our domestic energy house without a foundation.
Ethanol…dubious environmental benefit? Line up the hundreds of studies regarding ethanol, look at the funding sources and consider what is left. What you will find is a long trail of reputable scientists and institutions public, private and governmental that clearly shows the environmental benefits of ethanol.
When compared to petroleum especially, ethanol is a rock star in regard to cleaning the air, maintaining water quality, and soil management. On the oil side think tar sands.
Your reference to the land use issue is also comical. Incredible productivity on our existing corn acres is easily supplying the growing ethanol industry while also meeting the needs of other markets. And yield growth is accelerating.
And finally, I think we must aggressively pursue all forms of renewable, domestic energy given the finite nature of petroleum and do so in good conscience because of the legacy we stand to leave future generations. To suggest we put our entire energy investment in “maybe someday” sources while ignoring a viable and tested source like ethanol is shortsighted at best.
It seems that the attacks on corn commodities and corn ethanol will never stop. In a new report released last week called Green Scissors 2010, Friends of the Earth (aka FOE, how apropos) is calling for an end to subsidies in several areas including agriculture, biofuels, energy, infrastructure, and public lands.
Many of the recommendations of this report cut into corn ethanol from various angles. First, FOE calls for an end of government subsidies for commodity crops including corn. Next, they call for an end of ethanol subsidies, specifically the ethanol tax credit (VEETC) and the ethanol tariff. They do, however, acknowledge that the subsidies directly go to oil but indirectly help the ethanol and agricultural industry.
They write on their website, “Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money has already been wasted under the credit [VEETC]. And these funds do little more than to further line the coffers of the oil industry. This coalition is working to prevent an additional 30 billion plus dollars from being lavished on the industry to fulfill a legally mandated requirement to blend an environmentally harmful fuel into another environmentally harmful one.”
They argue that eliminating commodity crop subsidies by 50 percent could save taxpayers more than $26 billion over the next five years. They also argue that eliminating VEETC could save the U.S. Treasury as much as $5.4 billion in 2011.
If attacking the subsidy issue isn’t enough, they also attacked corn and corn ethanol on multiple environmental fronts including water quality (Dead Zone and hypoxia) as well as the ‘major’ amount of land that must be used to grow the crops. They go so far in the report to accuse corn-ethanol as being a bigger environmental offender than petroleum.
Corn ethanol may not be perfect, but I can’t stomach the false accusation that corn ethanol is environmentally worse than petroleum. But maybe the most frustrating thing is that not only is Friends of the Earth uneducated about agriculture and the corn ethanol industry, they don’t want to be. And in a world that is so “concerned” about the environment, FOE’s refusal to be open to non-fossil fuel options is a disservice to the American public.
My brother-in-law recently asked me why ethanol had a great reputation for two decades and suddenly seems to be getting pounded constantly, especially in editorial/opinion pages by the media.
He doesn’t have a farming background and isn’t invested in the ethanol industry so he is a neutral and somewhat uninformed observer. He is also one of the busiest guys I know so for him to notice it means the anti-ethanol crowd are now officially pervasive. Apparently, it’s not just me feeling paranoid.
The conversation came back to me in a hurry this week with the latest “ethanol is evil” Tsunami rolling across the country once again. It started with the Wall Street Journal (No link here because you have to pay for this tripe) and the Washington Post and worked its way across the country hitting the Chicago Tribune and Des Moines Register yesterday and likely making its way for the West Coast like some cheap traveling circus.
And like the aforementioned Circus the anti-ethanol gang leave a trail behind much like Barnum and Bailey’s elephants only there is no guy with a shovel and bucket cleaning up in their wake. They leave their load of “misinformation” to fester in the road in full knowledge that most people are also too busy to check the veracity of their propaganda.
The public lynching of ethanol began with the bogus food vs. fuel charade in 2008 and since then has continued to resurface over and over again in several different guises that get trotted out and recycled whenever opportunity presents itself.
Several things remain consistent as the attacks continue. The noxious cocktail they serve up is made with equal parts of the best bad science money can buy and poor logic. And the olive on the toothpick seems to be just plain old avarice.
That’s greed, materialism, or covetousness with a Capital “C.” The people fanning the fires of these attacks have rationale and motivation that are simple if not transparent. They are the folks that want the cheapest corn possible because it boosts their profits; want ethanol to be made from another source; or want ethanol crippled forever because the market share just got too big.
So, for the next couple of days come back here and you will get a sneak peak each day of some of these players and the Machiavellian games they play and fund all to snuff out the only real competition that imported petroleum faces in the marketplace today…ethanol.
The nation’s major fuel marketing associations are advocating legislation that will help them sell higher blends of renewable fuels, including ethanol and biodiesel greater than E10 or B5.
According to NACS, “the bill will enable retailers to have existing equipment evaluated and legally approved to sell new renewable fuels and will expedite the approval of new equipment. It also will protect retailers from Clean Air Act violations and liability associated with self-service consumers fueling unapproved engines with higher blends of renewable fuels.”
On the RFA blog, communications director Matt Hartwig said the legislation will help provide for a “seamless transition” to E15, whenever it is approved by EPA, “accelerating the adoption of E15 and the needed expansion of the ethanol market.”
The groups collectively sent a letter to Reps. Ross and Shimkus thanking them for their leadership in introducing the bill.
Representatives from the American Meat Institute (AMI), Environmental Working Group (EWG), Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Taxpayers for Common Sense used the CBO report’s findings that it costs taxpayers $1.78 per gallon of corn ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78, and statements from Growth Energy that “the VEETC has served out its purpose” (7/16/10 eTeam Update), to further its long-standing agenda to eliminate incentives for corn based ethanol. In a press conference yesterday, the groups trotted out just about every criticism of corn ethanol they have used for the last several years, and then some. Here are a few choice quotes – and differing facts to the contrary.
AMI president J. Patrick Boyle -
“The blenders tax credit has distorted the corn market, increased the cost of feeding animals and squeezed production margins, resulting in job losses and bankruptcies in rural communities across America.”
FACT: Based on an AMI report claiming 5500 jobs were lost in 2008. A report on the contribution of the ethanol industry to the economy in 2008 found that while plants were closed or idled that year due to the economic downturn, the ethanol industry still supported more than 494,000 jobs, a significant portion in rural areas.
“Continuing to subsidize ethanol will not solve our energy needs nor end our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum – it will inflate the cost of food production.”
FACT: A Congressional Budget Office report released in April 2009 and a recent report from the UK found that it was mainly higher oil prices that drove prices for both food and feed higher in 2008. That was proven true last year when the amount of corn used for ethanol increased from 2008, but feed and food prices went down. (more…)
The report, “Using Biofuels Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy Goals,” found that it costs taxpayers $1.78 to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon using corn ethanol. The cost rises to $3 with ethanol made from crop residue and other forms of plant cellulose, for which there is a $1.01 per gallon tax credit.
The Renewable Fuels Association says the report takes the issue of ethanol tax incentives out of context. “It may seem penny-wise, but would be pound-foolish to dismiss the benefits of current biofuels in light of the havoc wrought by our dependence on fossil fuels,” said RFA president Bob Dinneen. “All comprehensive analyses demonstrate that ethanol provides a real world, cost effective tool to reduce dependence on oil and create domestic jobs. Additionally, as CBO rightly notes, ethanol also reduces carbon emissions compared to gasoline.”
However, as corn growers were meeting on Capitol Hill this week, even their good friends were telling them that the blenders tax credit, technically known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit or VEETC, may not be extended at the end of the year – or at least not for more than a year. (more…)
The Land Use Conundrum . . . Corn, An Advanced Biofuel? That was the title of one of the sessions at the recent Corn Utilization and Technology Conference that was moderated by Jamey Cline, NCGA. One of his panelists was Adam Liska, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His remarks were on “Uncertainty in Indirect Land Use Change Emissions from Biofuels.” Adam has focused his work on the life cycle efficiency of producing ethanol.
Adam says that there has been increased agricultural production worldwide due to increased demand and it seems like attributing some of that to increased biofuels production makes sense. However, he says that quantifying the emissions related to agricultural production due to biofuels use is very uncertain because it’s done “as a projection into the future.” The bottom line is we don’t know what will happen in the future. He says “it’s nearly impossible.” He says that there are estimates for corn ethanol but they get smaller and smaller with more research and information. He says that they’ve started to do some research on the indirect effects of gasoline production and figure they’re roughly equivalent to that of ethanol. He also points to the impact of changes in livestock production as a result of higher grain prices and says it may have more impact than land use changes. Seems like there is a huge amount of variability in how you look at the future when it comes to biofuels production and especially corn ethanol.
You can download (mp3) and listen to my interview with Adam here:
If you have watched any of the World Cup soccer tournament, you no doubt heard that incessant sound make by blowing the noisemakers known as “vuvuzelas” that were popularized by South African soccer fans. The plastic blowing horns produce a loud, distinctive monotone note that some people say sounds like the constant droning of a huge swarm of bees.
Critics of corn – whether it be ethanol, sweetener, or just farming in general – can sometimes sound like the constant droning of vuvuzelas, churning out the same old tired arguments in a loud, distinctive monotone. Looking through my Google alerts for ethanol over the holiday weekend I found a number of articles and blog postings that use those vuvuzela-type arguments. When the stories offer a place for comments, I always look to see what is being said and may offer some comment of my own to try and break through that monotony.
About a dozen corn grower states recently got some social media training by AgChat expert Michele Payn-Knoper. While much of that training focuses on how you can use social media tools like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to tell the positive story of agriculture to the general public, it also involves taking the initiative to set the record straight when you see agriculture being attacked in on-line stories. It has never been any easier to provide your own editorial comments than it is today with stories found on-line. No printing or stamps involved, no letters to mail, no gatekeeper (in most cases) to edit or silence your point of view. There may be moderation for some comments (which is highly encouraged, if you have or want to start your own blog) but usually comments are approved. The moderation is mainly to prevent spam comments from getting through.
My point is – make some of your own noise! The articles I saw had NO opposing viewpoints from corn growers or their advocates. Take some time once a week to browse through on-line articles that are critical of farming or ethanol or corn products and make your voice heard. Sign up for Google alerts for corn, farming or ethanol so you know what is being said and respond. The forum is there, we need to utilize it.
This past weekend the family and I drove about 1200 miles, leaving the St. Louis area to visit family in Lake Zurich, Ill., and then driving down to Ft. Campbell in Kentucky to drop our son off at his barracks. Then back home. About 1200 miles in all, the vast majority in Illinois, where the corn was growing tall and straight, for the most part. Illinois saw the highest increase in planted acres, according to the USDA, up from 12 million acres in 2009 to 12.6 million acres in 2010. Great news for our hard-working Illinois corn growers!
I also saw a lot of cars with Flex-Fuel logos on the back, and wished we had the same with our 2006 Toyota Sienna. But that was not an option.
This past weekend, Robert Zubrin wrote a great piece in the Washington Times calling for open fuel standards. The idea is to get more cars on the road that can handle a variety of fuels, whether it foreign-oil-based gasoline, domestic-and-renewable corn ethanol, or even methanol. This would add about a hundred bucks to the price of the car and give us more energy independence, which means more energy security.
As Zubrin puts it:
“We are not addicted to oil. Our cars are addicted to oil. They are like a tribe of people who, because of some unfortunate flaw, can only eat one kind of food, say herring. Thus, if the herring merchants combine to rig up the price of their product to $100 per pound, the tribesmen have no choice but to submit. They would be far better off if they could become omnivores, capable of eating steak, ice cream, corn, eggs, apples, etc., as the power to use such alternatives would make them immune from herring-cartel extortion.”
It’s time to see more energy freedom on the roads — not just in the Corn Belt, but across the Land of the Free.
Photo: Zubrin autographs his book “Energy Victory” at the 2009 Commodity Classic.
I just finished reading comments from The World Bank that say “…the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called “financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.” 
Representatives from the American Meat Institute (AMI), Environmental Working Group (EWG), Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Taxpayers for Common Sense used the 
The tax credit for blenders to use ethanol came under fire this week with the release of a critical 
The Land Use Conundrum . . . Corn, An Advanced Biofuel? That was the title of one of the sessions at the recent Corn Utilization and Technology Conference that was moderated by Jamey Cline, NCGA. One of his panelists was Adam Liska, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His remarks were on “Uncertainty in Indirect Land Use Change Emissions from Biofuels.” Adam has focused his work on the life cycle efficiency of producing ethanol. 
If you have watched any of the 
